☆~PoLOLtics~☆

[Geeto67]

Did this moment just end the Rittenhouse trial?

 

No, because that's not how trials work.

[Otis Nice]

No, because that's not how trials work.

 

Correct. Just copied and pasted the article title.

 

We see the other 3 folks reactions. What are your thoughts?

[oh8sti]

I dont think the prosecution wants this case at all. He knows this is dead in the water

 

its almost like he's been forced into it.

[99FLHRCI]

No, because that's not how trials work.

 

Maybe not literally but just like with any competition, there are defining moments that are why the win occurred. I would say this is a pretty heavy blow that will probably (and should) define the outcome of this charge.

[Geeto67]

Correct. Just copied and pasted the article title.

 

not a dig at yo personally, just at this kind of punditry. IT's loaded crap like this that contributes to people being confused about their own justice system.

 

We see the other 3 folks reactions. What are your thoughts?

 

The testimony speaks to one of the 6 charges, the attempted first degree intentional homicide, it does not contribute as evidence to any of the other charges. While it is not helpful testimony to the prosecution, it is not always clear how the jury will see that evidence in the context of the other evidence. They could read it as KR defending himself, or they could read it as KR's open carry was read by the witness as threatening causing them to draw their own weapon, which in in turn drew the shot from KR. One looks like self defense the other doesn't. I'm not there so I can't read the jury, and only those in the deliberation room know how it is going at this point.

 

I will say that the "clip" is super annoying to watch with those three youtubers on the left side of things acting as the peanut gallery. This is a solid example of pundit pandering to an audience and not any real reporting. Personally I wouldn't rely on this and would probably look for another source of the trial without all the bullshit, I would say that sharing this as news of something contributes to the misinformation problem we are having with media in general right now.

[Furloaf]

Curfew charge dismissed because the idiot state prosecutor's forgot to present any evidence for it. It was a BS charge anyway.

 

Defense said Kyle was going to testify if I heard right. Very bad idea, it's probably his idea though. I'd say he was like 90% clear of the murder/endangerment charges when state rested. Could really throw it the other way with testifying himself.

[Otis Nice]

not a dig at yo personally, just at this kind of punditry. IT's loaded crap like this that contributes to people being confused about their own justice system.

 

Are you referring to the article title? I was asking your thoughts as to the confession/admittance that he pointed his gun at Rittenhouse.

 

 

The testimony speaks to one of the 6 charges, the attempted first degree intentional homicide, it does not contribute as evidence to any of the other charges. While it is not helpful testimony to the prosecution, it is not always clear how the jury will see that evidence in the context of the other evidence. They could read it as KR defending himself, or they could read it as KR's open carry was read by the witness as threatening causing them to draw their own weapon, which in in turn drew the shot from KR. One looks like self defense the other doesn't. I'm not there so I can't read the jury, and only those in the deliberation room know how it is going at this point.

 

Ah. Here it is.

 

"...or they could read it as KR's open carry was read by the witness as threatening causing them to draw their own weapon..."

 

I don't see how. The actions of pursuing him do not seem to show they felt threatened. If they truly feeling threatened they would have drawn immediately or left. Not chased him down the street and behind parked cars as he was blatantly trying to retreat.

 

I will say that the "clip" is super annoying to watch with those three youtubers on the left side of things acting as the peanut gallery.

 

Agreed. That's why when I watched it back I chose the video lower in the link without them.

 

I would say that sharing this as news of something contributes to the misinformation problem we are having with media in general right now.

 

Yeah?

[Furloaf]

Are you serious on the misinformation? Look at the headlines for how mainstream news media is reporting on Gaige's testimony.

 

Speaking of the Gaige encounter was mischarged. Should not have been attempted homicide. Assault with a deadly weapon would have had a chance of sticking - but would not have appeased the mob which is why there is even a trial going on.

[zeitgeist57]

I have no idea what you guys are talking about, whatever this Rittenhaus thing is.

[Otis Nice]

I have no idea what you guys are talking about, whatever this Rittenhaus thing is.

 

Sorry this is from a media source and that I'm sharing this as news of something that contributes to the misinformation problem we are having with media in general right now but here is one article talkinmbout it.

[Otis Nice]

[Geeto67]

Ah. Here it is.

 

"...or they could read it as KR's open carry was read by the witness as threatening causing them to draw their own weapon..."

 

I don't see how. The actions of pursuing him do not seem to show they felt threatened. If they truly feeling threatened they would have drawn immediately or left. Not chased him down the street and behind parked cars as he was blatantly trying to retreat.

 

 

It's called a "Fight or Flight" response specifically because either of those two things happen when a person it threatened, it isn't a "just flight response". Just because you don't see it doesn't mean the jury sees it your way. Just as you don't threaten a wild animal without some expectation it will attack you, you don't threaten people without the same expectation.

 

 

Everybody is focused on the Rosenbaum testimony, but don't forget there is also the testimony of a paramedic, Grosskreutz, who KR shot in the arm. Grosskreutz testified that he believed the teenager was an active shooter and so pursued him and unholstered his own concealed firearm. He testified that he put his hands up when Rittenhouse pointed his AR-15-style rifle at him but believed Rittenhouse did not accept his surrender. Rittenhouse shot him in the right bicep. That is tough testimony to get around, even if in the other interaction he acted in self defense. KR fired Eight shots in total that night - every single one of them has to have been in Self Defense in order for him to be found innocent of most of these charges, If even one of them isn't then it doesn't matter that the other 7 were.

[Gergwheel1647545492]

It's called a "Fight or Flight" response specifically because either of those two things happen when a person it threatened, it isn't a "just flight response". Just because you don't see it doesn't mean the jury sees it your way. Just as you don't threaten a wild animal without some expectation it will attack you, you don't threaten people without the same expectation.

 

 

Everybody is focused on the Rosenbaum testimony, but don't forget there is also the testimony of a paramedic, Grosskreutz, who KR shot in the arm. Grosskreutz testified that he believed the teenager was an active shooter and so pursued him and unholstered his own concealed firearm. He testified that he put his hands up when Rittenhouse pointed his AR-15-style rifle at him but believed Rittenhouse did not accept his surrender. Rittenhouse shot him in the right bicep. That is tough testimony to get around, even if in the other interaction he acted in self defense. KR fired Eight shots in total that night - every single one of them has to have been in Self Defense in order for him to be found innocent of most of these charges, If even one of them isn't then it doesn't matter that the other 7 were.

 

Guilty until proven innocent.... Got it.

[greg1647545532]

Guilty until proven innocent.... Got it.

 

Self defense is an affirmative defense, so that's exactly how it works. It's one of the rare cases in our legal system where you effectively lose the presumption of innocence and have to prove it in court.

[Buck531]

[Tractor]

My view is that a lot of bad decisions were made by a lot of people during those times. I completely agree that KR was a misguided youth playing protector where he probably should have followed the lead of police and bunch of scared men who didn't go stand up for the rights of innocent businesses and people. Could have stayed out of trouble and went on with his life. Like I said lots of people made mistakes. I'd prefer the story was, bunch of violent protesters got wasted by locals protecting themselves because their police wouldn't do the job.

 

Having said that, IMHO. KR doesn't get to use self defense, considering he knowingly put himself in a place where he would need to be armed and in the way of a bunch of protesters who he could have completely avoided. This makes him guilty of something. Maybe not murders but mistakes that maybe should have consequences.

 

He got into one of those situations where if your side wins you're a hero and if your side loses you're a villain. Sad but it's the way it works and since this wasn't a full-on political revolt where he could have ever became a hero he made a really bad choice.

[Otis Nice]

...he knowingly put himself in a place...

 

You mean a peaceful protest? That's what all of those were, right?

[oh8sti]

this prosecutor must hate his job

[Mace1647545504]

let me fix your statement you said protesters..you meant rioters..better

[Mace1647545504]

more KR trial issues:

 

https://www.yahoo.com/news/judge-shouts-kyle-rittenhouse-prosecutor-173056990.html

[oh8sti]

more KR trial issues:

 

https://www.yahoo.com/news/judge-shouts-kyle-rittenhouse-prosecutor-173056990.html

 

the prosecutor is getting really close to having this mistrial'd w/ prejudice.

[Furloaf]

The amount I've been wondering whether the state is intentionally throwing the trial or trying to get a mistrial has only increased since it began. Has exploded today. Binger almost provoking the judge to sanction him or hold him in contempt. I agree Binger is not working in good faith.

[oh8sti]

The amount I've been wondering whether the state is intentionally throwing the trial or trying to get a mistrial has only increased since it began. Has exploded today. Binger almost provoking the judge to sanction him or hold him in contempt. I agree Binger is not working in good faith.

 

serious question -

 

Is there a Strat in this? Like to get a different judge or something when they retry it if its a mistrial?

[Furloaf]

serious question -

 

Is there a Strat in this? Like to get a different judge or something when they retry it if its a mistrial?

 

As I understand it a mistrial due to prosecutorial misconduct is a mistrial with prejudice meaning it can not be retried. So if the goal is to get a conviction then no there isn't a strategy at play.

[Geeto67]

 

Having said that, IMHO. KR doesn't get to use self defense, considering he knowingly put himself in a place where he would need to be armed and in the way of a bunch of protesters who he could have completely avoided. This makes him guilty of something. Maybe not murders but mistakes that maybe should have consequences.

 

I think a lot of people feel this way, probably the majority. I know I feel this way too. He was a kid who made a mistake and people died, there are consequences that need to be held to account but at the same time I don't know that prison for 20+ years is the answer.

 

I do think his actions highlight a larger problem, esp. with law enforcement recruitment. If you think about it: KR was really gung ho about becoming a cop, but not for the public assistance aspect of it or the helping the community aspect of it - but rather from the look at all the cool tactical gear and weapons I get to use aspect of it. There are plenty of things he could have done that don't involve a firearm that would have shown a commitment to public service, but instead of doing any of them, he gives his friend money to go buy him a rifle. If this hadn't happened who knows if he would have become a police officer or not, he was certainly trying to put himself on that track, but how many more are like him and do end up police officers?

 

serious question -

 

Is there a Strat in this? Like to get a different judge or something when they retry it if its a mistrial?

 

The Prosecution's strategy is always to prove their case and win. Their whole internal system rewards convictions and punishes failures to convict. Likely the prosecutor's strategy here is to push the line.

 

In the instance about KR's silence the prosecutor knows that things can't be unheard so he may be pushing the line hoping that the jury maybe hears something that will color their opinions even if they have been instructed not to consider it.

 

In the second instance the Judge excluded evidence that would be really beneficial to the prosecutions case because a proper foundation had not been laid for it and it's relevancy to the event had not been established. Likely the prosecutor was again testing the limits of the judge's decision to exclude to see if maybe he had changed his mind once the trial got underway. Because this case has national attention the prosecutor likely knows that the judge will use restraint before declaring a mistrial, and that he can maybe push the envelope a little.

 

This is all my conjecture from actually having tried cases in front of a jury. Jury Trials are not like in the movies, there are no "a-ha" moments and things aren't always clear. They can be really procedural and boring at times and you have two people trying to actively manipulate the minds of the jury to side with them which means they will sometimes try any and everything in the moment to see what works.

 

 

As I understand it a mistrial due to prosecutorial misconduct is a mistrial with prejudice meaning it can not be retried. So if the goal is to get a conviction then no there isn't a strategy at play.

 

Correct, a mistrial with prejudice would be very bad for the prosecution, and I agree that this would not be in the strategy. That said, I do think both sides are going to try to push the envelope a little on the judges rulings a little because of the attention the case is getting on a national level. If they can't win the court, maybe they can still win in the court of public opinion.